Bob Rae initially said that there can be no doubt that Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty are tea party type ideologues mirroring what their south of the border cousins are doing and saying, but with a Canadian touch. Rae quoted former Ontario Premier Ernie Eves, himself a conservative, in saying that former MPP Norm Sterling was short-handed by PCs in a nomination challenge in his Carleton-Mississippi Mills riding.
Now I’m not sure what the whole Norm Sterling situation has to do with the PCs being a bit extremist, but in my opinion here are five similarities and three differences between the Tea Party movement in the U.S. and our Progressive Conservatives:
First similarity is that both the Tea Party and the Progressive Conservatives have a clear ideological direction in minimizing the role of Government, in particular it’s spending. Thus, both groups are firmly committed to fixing the financial mess we’re in, which they usually attribute to government overspending. This is largely why their message resonates so strongly during harsh economic times, although, as a liberal I disagree with the claim that the size of government is to be blamed for this latest possible double-dip recession.
Second, one of the Tea Party’s and PC’s main focuses has always been to reshape the electoral landscape in their respective countries by uniting people through nationalist fervor. Saying things like our country is the best country in the world has always been a matter of perspective, unfortunately, the Tea Partiers and PCs actually believe these kinds of statements. Therefore, their strategy usually involves things such as: Strengthening the country’s borders, insulating it in a sense, increased military focus if not spending, new civic responsibility measures, tough on crime agendas, almost always lower taxation and other schemes designed to motivate the public to vote them into power.
The third similarity is a simple one to state. It is a well known fact that the older one gets in age the more conservative their views about public and civic life get. This is because there is less and less time left for the individual to affect any meaningful change, so maintaining the status quo in exchange for tranquility and a small measure of certainty in wait for the end is about the only political course left for the person. There are exceptions to this rule however. Thus, as far as I’m aware, both the Tea Party in the U.S. and the PC’s of Canada have an older and more seasoned voter base than their rivals.
Fourth similarity refers to the fact that conservatism, whether of the Tea Party flavor or the more watered down PC flavor, has always been the favorite political way of expression for the religious. Now I’m not saying that there aren’t any religious voters voting for the Liberals or the NDP, I’m sure there are plenty; however, ideologically, conservatism trumps both liberalism and socialism in appeal to the faithful.
Finally, the fifth similarity is the most striking as both the Tea Party and the Progressive Conservatives of Canada have traditionally preferred policies conducive to lower immigration rates, protectionism, privatization and a lesser role for government in deciding public policy. In other words, both loathe, the Tea Party more so, the idea of a welfare state.
And that’s about it when it comes to the similarities between our Progressive Conservatives and the Tea Party. Mr. Bob Rae may have not been entirely mistaken in likening the two. I for one think that despite Ivison’s brilliant rebuke of Mr. Rae’s statement, the specter of a Tea Partyesque PC government is not entirely unrealistic.
However, there are some major differences between the two as well. These are:
First, the PCs don’t necessarily push for an ultra-conservative “no spending” agenda, whereas the Tea Party advocates the most minimally possible spending on government and public services. Canada’s Conservatives for example don’t want to spend less, as new figures have shown that under Harper the size of government has increased, but rather shift focus from spending money on welfare, health-care and other public services funded by the taxpayer to spending on law enforcement, the military and national image (e.g. changing the moniker for the army from Canadian Forces to Royal Canadian Forces). This can be a bit confusing since on one hand the PCs claim they want to shrink government spending, but at the same time their actions seem to propagate an increase in the size of government.
Second, the PCs haven’t really decided on a limiting immigration policy, although they have been known to get tough on human smuggling and on those individuals claiming refugee status. But since their victory in the May elections they have not hinted at imposing any prohibitive immigration laws, unlike some of their conservative counterparts in the Tea Party whom seem to publicly dislike immigrants, in particular Muslims.
The third difference involves the Progressive Conservative belief, here all parties in Canada agree, that an elected government cannot just enforce laws, not regulate industry and taxation and cannot sit idly by while its citizens suffer. In other words, the PCs want there to be a limited welfare state. This is something in which their Tea Party counterparts could not possibly believe as it runs contrary to their wish for lower taxation, less government spending and less government involvement in setting public policy.
Of course there are other differences but I can’t think of the rest off the top of my head. This is a subject best approached through an essay.
So there you have it, despite Ivison’s article asserting correctly that people should not panic and vote Liberal instead of Conservative in the upcoming provincial elections over the comparison Bob Rae made, engage in fear voting, it is not inconceivable, with a Tory majority in Ontario, to expect to see certain elements within the PC to become more Tea Party like and eventually push for an unprecedented conservative agenda in the country.
